Bonilla-Chirinos, et al. v. City of West Sacramento, et al.

Filing 106

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/14/2020 GRANTING 101 Motion to Approve Minor's Compromise. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14

GUILLERMO BONILLA-CHIRINOS
and SANDRA HERNANDEZ,
individually and as guardians
ad litem of J.B., a minor,
Plaintiffs,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

No. 2:15-cv-2564 WBS EFB

ORDER RE: MINOR’S COMPROMISE

v.
CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO and
police officers KENNETH
FELLOWS, MICHELLE TATE,
ANTHONY HERRERA, THOMAS
MAGGIANO, JENNIFER GRILLAT,
ERIC ANGLE, MATTHEW LUIZ, and
DAVID STALLIONS, in their
individual and official
capacities,
Defendants.

23
24
25

----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Guillermo Bonilla-Chirinos and Sandra

26

Hernandez, individually and on behalf of their son J.B., brought

27

this action against defendants the City of West Sacramento (“the

28

City”) and several West Sacramento police officers alleging,
1

1

among other things, that defendants used excessive force in

2

arresting them and violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to

3

familial association.

4

in whole or in part as to several claims and defendants (Docket

5

No. 40) and the Ninth Circuit found that qualified immunity

6

applied to plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment familial association

7

claims (Docket No. 90), the only claims remaining are plaintiffs’

8

excessive force claims against Kenneth Fellows, Michelle Tate,

9

and Anthony Herrera.

After the court granted summary judgment

J.B.’s sole remaining claim is that

10

defendant Herrera used excessive force against him by pointing a

11

shotgun in his direction during his parents’ arrest at their

12

residence.

13

After the case was remanded by the Ninth Circuit, the

14

parties settled the case and plaintiffs now seek approval of the

15

settlement for J.B., a minor.

16

a hearing on plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Minor’s Compromise on

17

January 13, 2020.

18

(Docket No. 101.)

The court held

Under the Eastern District of California’s Local Rules,

19

the court must approve the settlement of the claims of a minor.

20

E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b).

21

settlement must provide the court “information as may be required

22

to enable the [c]ourt to determine the fairness of the settlement

23

or compromise[.]”

24

Rosengren, 638 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (stating that

25

district courts have a duty “to safeguard the interests of minor

26

plaintiffs” that requires them to “determine whether the net

27

amount distributed to each minor plaintiff in the proposed

28

settlement is fair and reasonable[.]”).

The party moving for approval of the

Id. at L.R. 202(b)(2); see also Robidoux v.

2

1

In Robidoux, the Ninth Circuit specifically instructed

2

district courts to “limit the scope of their review to the

3

question whether the net amount distributed to each minor

4

plaintiff in the settlement is fair and reasonable, in light of

5

the facts of the case, the minor’s specific claim, and recovery

6

in similar cases.”

7

638 F.3d at 1181-82.

Under the proposed settlement, plaintiff Sandra

8

Hernandez will receive $9,800 and plaintiffs Guillermo Bonilla-

9

Chirinos and J.B. will receive no compensation.

(Mot. 2 (Docket

10

No. 101).)1

11

which provides no compensation to minor J.B., the court

12

recognizes plaintiffs’ representations that (1) there were no

13

claims by J.B. that he suffered any physical injuries or physical

14

abuse at the hands of defendants; (2) J.B.’s excessive force

15

claim was unlikely to succeed with a jury and was weaker than his

16

claim for deprivation of familial association, which was

17

dismissed by the Ninth Circuit; (3) J.B. has difficulty

18

remembering and articulating how the incident emotionally

19

impacted him, which would make it difficult to prove damages to a

20

jury;2 (4) the time and expenses involved in trying the claim

21

greatly outweigh the nominal damages he might receive from a

22

jury; (5) the jury would likely reject J.B.’s claim, leading to

23

taxation of statutory costs against him; and (6) his mother’s

24

claim for emotional and physical damages was the strongest of the

25

Plaintiffs do not state what portion of this settlement
amount, if any, will be deducted for attorney’s fees.

26
27
28

While the court has some concern about a settlement

1

Indeed, at the hearing on the motion, J.B.’s mother
stated that while he has some memory of the events at issue in
the complaint, he did not remember a gun being pointed at him.
3
2

1

remaining claims in this case.

2

recognizes that defendants have vigorously defended this case,

3

including successfully obtaining a reversal of this court’s

4

denial of qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s deprivation of

5

familial association claim, and defendants continue to deny any

6

liability.

7

(Mot. 3-5.)

The court further

The court, having considered all of the papers on file

8

as well as the parties’ representations at the hearing on this

9

motion, finds that the settlement is fair and reasonable and in

10

the best interests of minor J.B., given all of the circumstances

11

of this case, notwithstanding the fact that he will receive no

12

compensation.3

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 202(b); see also Robidoux, 638

13

F.3d at 1179.

Accordingly, the court will approve the settlement

14

of plaintiffs’ claims against defendants and will grant

15

plaintiffs’ Motion to Approve Minor’s Compromise.

16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Approve

17

Minor’s Compromise (Docket No. 101) be, and the same hereby is,

18

GRANTED.

19

Dated:

January 14, 2020

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs cite no case involving a minor’s compromise
where the minor received no compensation, though the court notes
that if plaintiffs had simply dismissed J.B.’s claim, no approval
of the court would be required. This settlement of J.B.’s claim
for no compensation, but in effect a waiver of costs, is
tantamount to such a dismissal.
4
3